Effect and Cause

It's been obvious for a while now that this whole Kim Dotcom thing will roll on and I'm picking it will be the undoing of the government in one way or another.  If a catastrophic failure doesn't pull the government down (and I reckon it's 50/50 at present), attrition over the next two years will.
Looking at the trends on the Roy Morgan poll out today, attrition will leave a terrible result for National.

This graph, which I copied straight from the Roy Morgan website (go read it) shows confidence in the National Party dropping to levels that it took Labour eight years and a coalition with NZ First to reach.  National have achieve the same dire result in four years and what they claim was a strong mandate from the last election.  Yeah?
Care to test that mandate?  Now, before the next election turns to 2002 all over again with Bill English as leader after Regular John quit while he was behind (because, typical gambler, he forget to quit while he was ahead) and in the aftermath the caucus couldn't choose between Judith and Steve?  Stranger things have happened.

Back on track - the whole "blame the spooks" approach seemed flawed to me.  Here's how Stuff describe it:

Key has lashed the GCSB for a series of bungles over the Dotcom case which have left him politically exposed.

In the same article on Stuff the head of the GCSB, Ian Fletcher, says suggestions that a video was taken of Mr Key mentioning Kim Dotcom before the critical date of 17 September are false.  As proof he says the system has been searched and no such video found.  The suggestion was that the video was recorded on one or more cellphones; in which case it probably never made it on to a server.  However it seems unlikely a video would be leaked as it would be fairly easy for GCSB to work out who shot the video.  Audio is a different story.
If Mr Key had not dumped so heavily on the GCSB he would have not caused nearly as much resentment amongst the rank and file.  But his political nous has deserted him; a smarter politician would have found a creative solution.  But that understanding of effect and cause is absent.  Is the GCSB's pride injured enough to leak the audio?  Again, stranger things have happened.

White Stripes - Icky Thump, 2007

Memory

Kim Dotcom sure does make people forget a lot of stuff.
John Banks forgot a donation to his mayoral election campaign from Dotcom, and forgot visiting Dotcom'ss house in a helicopter.  Lucky he remembers he never had sex with Dotcom.
A GCSB officer had a brain-fade, and not in my words but in Regular John's, late last week.

"I expect better and I'll be getting better out of them in the future. But the simple facts of life are that they suffered what can only be described as a massive brain-fade by one person who actually reviewed the file.That's wrong and it shouldn't have happened but people do make mistakes."

Fair enough, people do make mistakes.  A whole lot of finance company directors made mistakes over the last few years.  They were held to account.
And now Regular John has been found to have had brain-fade too.  From National's website:

The Prime Minister visited GCSB offices on 29 February for a briefing on the broader capabilities of the bureau, and to meet the staff. A paper prepared as talking points for the staff member conducting a presentation contained a short reference to the Dotcom arrest a few weeks earlier, as an example of cooperation between the GCSB and the Police. The presentation was an electronic slide presentation. The cover slide was a montage of 11 small images, one of which was of Mr Dotcom.

and the PM says:

“I have been clear from the outset that I received no briefing on the operation from GCSB prior to 17 September, and this review confirms that,” says Mr Key.
“While neither the GCSB Director nor I can recall the reference to the Dotcom matter being made during my visit to the bureau back in February, I accept that it may well have been made.
“Given the public statements I have made in Parliament and in the media, it is important that I take this opportunity to provide this additional information.
“I will be correcting my answers to the House when it resumes on Tuesday 16 October.”

Don't correct your answer to the House, John, go and tell the Governor General.  Then ask him to dissolve parliament.  Think of it as an opportunity to confirm that mandate you got to sell asset.

Elaine Paige - Cats, 1981

Sorry

One day I hope to explain to my grandchildren that once upon a time our hapless PM was completely out-witted by a funny-looking and funny-sounding German (or Finn, even Justice Neazor who really should know, isn't sure) who made his millions, or billions, by helping people share files on the internet and as a result was wanted by the FBI..  The problem is I doubt they will believe me, because it is too ridiculous to be true.

It's such a SNAFU that the apologies are flying.  Here's a link to the Herald article where John Key apologises to Kim Dotcom, and here's a quote taken directly from the article:

"Of course I apologise to Mr Dotcom, and I apologise to New Zealanders."

I've added emphasis to the quote because I am a New Zealander, the apology is in part to me and it leads me to a very important question - where does the buck stop?

President Truman knew the answer, it needs only four words.

The PM's role, because the PM is almost without exception responsible for oversight of national security, is to ensure proper oversight.  It's time to stop blaming the staff, the police and the spooks.  It's time for a resignation.

Madonna - Confessions On A Dance Floor, 2006

Galop Infernal

It did occur to me that my suggestion that John Banks must resign might have been a bit premature, and he may, in fact, have a role to play, as a minister.
Right now the Minister for Revenue is Peter Dunne, but I've not seen him do much except mumble platitudes.  It occurred to me that John Banks knows a bit about getting the money rolling in.  His unsuccessful campaign for the mayoralty of Auckland cost a bit.
Maybe he could redesign the tax system along the lines of his campaign fundraising plan.  He didn't fund it by getting lots of little donations from every individual, he targeted a select list of people who he thought could afford, instead.  Sounds very efficient.

Offenbach - Orpheus In The Underworld, 1858

Keine Lust

The clusterf*ck that is the Kim Dotcom case rolls on relentlessly.  And its such a charade.

Kim Dotcom is not a freedom fighter.

The government are in this up to their necks, and if they had any sense of loyalty to the citizens of New Zealand they would be doing their utmost to set things straight.  It would at least make a good distraction from the whole assets sales mess they have worked their way into.

The Police have done a terrible job, acted illegally, and I suspect, on no good grounds, that the main reason the government are not acting is that they are scared of Kim Dotcom, and don't know how to manage the situation.  That's a nice way of saying it's out of control.

About the only party to come out of this not smelling of something vile is the judiciary.

It's unfortunate that it's the NZ taxpayer will be the loser, when the government is sued for an enormous sum.

Rammstein - Reise, Reise, 2004

Been Caught Stealing

Like everyone else before the courts, Kim Dotcom is entitled to be considered to be innocent until proven guilty.  The FBI stealing his stuff, in contempt of a judge's instructions, is outrageous.
A proper Prime Minister would be expressing his outrage at the breach of our sovereignty and the outright disrespect for the rule of law in our land.  There are protocols for doing this, but Mr Key has ignored them, preferring to deliver some cheese to the Queen.  Farcical.

Jane's Addiction - Ritual De Lo Habitual, 1990

Pouring Petrol On A Burning Man

I'm becoming becoming sick and tired of blogging about Regular John, John Banks and Kim Dotcom.  But with  parliament not sitting this week, it's still news.
There's been nothing to change my opinion, yet, and I've come to the conclusion that I should call for a pox on all their houses.  For the following reasons:

• John Banks is perhaps the most obvious of the three.  His claims of lapses of memory, his evasiveness and obfuscation, his blatant attempts to subvert the spirit of the law and his lack of self-awareness about how immoral his actions are have been picked up by even the dullest of commenters.  John Banks is a joke.
• Regular John has failed in his duty to properly investigate allegations of improper behaviour by one of his Ministers.  And not just any old improper behaviour, if Banks had been outed for using the services of prostitutes or taking illegal drugs I'd not have cared too much, beyond scoffing at his hypocrisy.  But his indiscretions have struck at the heart of the foundations of our society, and by failing to take a cautious approach, Mr Key has failed every single one of us.
• Kim Dotcom's behaviour is quite outrageous.  He is, at one level, attempting to bring down a democratically elected government.  Now I won't pretend I like our present government; I hold a strong dislike for them.  And I won't pretend that I believe that there are never good grounds to try to bring down a democratically elected government, there are a range of good grounds.  Kim Dotcom is operating at the edge of one of those good grounds.  The principle of supporting democracy requires me to examine whether an attack on a democratically elected government is also an attack on democracy.  In this case, and I look forward to seeing how it develops*, I believe Kim Dotcom's actions could weaken our democracy.  I do not hold to the truism that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

*We have most certainly not heard the last of Kim Dotcom and John Banks.  Over the next few days, weeks and maybe months, more and more will leak out.  Mr Banks is the burning man, as mickeysavage pointed out (great photo mickey), Mr Dotcom is pouring the petrol.  The fire will consume Mr Banks and unless it is extinguished, it will also consume this government.  Before its time, but not before time.

Paul Kelly - Hidden Things, 1992

The Denial Twist

It surprises me that anyone bothers to read David Farrar*.  So often he's either out and out wrong, or pandering to a popular meme.  The main exception is when he is doing both things at the same time.  Like on Friday, when we got this piece of tripe, under the title R.I.P ACT, 1993 - 2012.
It starts with this:

Trauma surgeons at Wellington Political Hospital announced today that the ACT Party was judged clinically dead after succumbing to a grievous assault from Kim Dotcom.

Yes, that emphasis is mine.  So let's start with it.  Kim Dotcom did not kill ACT.  What he did was donate money to someone who later became leader of the ACT party.  While I am left-leaning, I do believe in personal responsibility.  Just like ACT, and National, claim to.  Kim Dotcom is not responsible for the joke that is ACT.
In terms of destroying ACT, I'd look to the following to take some responsibility:
- Rodney Hide, for culturing a reputation as a perk-buster, then being busted abusing his perks.
- David Garrett, for culturing a reputation as being tough on law and order, and getting busted for obtaining a passport in the name of a dead child.  And lying about his convictions to a Court.
- Don Brash, for orchestrating a badly-done coup, and for promising to get 15% of the vote at the election then actually getting, well, shall we say a job at Treasury awaits?
- And finally John Banks for the teapot saga and a pathological inability to keep his paperwork tidy.
But, in case you missed it, Kim Dotcom is not responsible of "a grievous assault".  If anything, he's only guilty of trying to help out a friend.
So why assign the blame to Kim Dotcom?  I reckon it's that standard technique of shining the spotlight of criticism and responsibility away from the real culprits and onto someone else.  That's all.

The bigger picture question relates to whether ACT is dead, or not.  In a strict sense, yes, it is dead.  As dead as a dodo.  With a wider understanding, no, it is not, never will be in my lifetime.
In the strict sense it seems extraordinarily unlikely that ACT will win any further seats in parliament under the ACT brand. Its name is so tainted by scandal, so widely held in contempt, so lacking in credibility, that it needs to be consigned to the history books.
In the wider sense, ACTs backers are determined, well connected and firmly convinced of the righteousness of their beliefs.  They may vote for National for the next few elections, but I am sure all things being equal they will reorganise and form a new party to the right of National.  Some time in the 2020s.
And won't that be a welcome addition to the political spectrum.  Honestly, I believe there is a place for a liberal party in parliament, and equally as honestly, I will never vote for them. Another collective based on the ideals of individualism; it's their weakness and I look forward to watching their wheels fall off.  Again.

White Stripes - Get Behind Me Satan, 2005